Pennsylvania is the DUMBEST state in the union

[reason10]

I know what you're thinking. How could PA elect a non functioning frat boy (who never worked a real job in his life) over a self made entrepreneur who  is also a DOCTOR? We could argue that until we're blue in the face, but that's not the example.

This is.

https://www.fox29.com/news/pennsylvania-state-representative-reelected-despite-being-dead

Pennsylvania state representative reelected despite being dead

Quote

 

A Pennsylvania state representative who died last month was reelected during the midterm elections, reports say.

Democrat Anthony "Tony" DeLuca died Oct. 9 "after a brief battle with lymphoma, a disease he twice previously beat. He was 85," the Pennsylvania House Democratic Caucus wrote. 

 

 

You hear the wild stories of Democrats harvesting votes from dead voters. But here is a bunch of low information rubes

who elected someone who clearly cannot serve, because HE IS DEAD.

Once again, an inferior Blue State.

Edited November 10, 2022 by reason10

[Rebound]

Obviously the voters chose him in order to get a new election, rather than put a Republican in the seat.  
 

You aren’t very bright, are you?

And while you’re at it, tell us how smart Herschel Walker is. 

[Boges]

It's also the most important Swing State. 

[reason10]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Obviously the voters chose him in order to get a new election, rather than put a Republican in the seat.  
 

You aren’t very bright, are you?

And while you’re at it, tell us how smart Herschel Walker is. 

The voters are STUPID. Or there is voter fraud. Only someone stupid would vote for a Democrat, dead or not.

[Rebound]

4 minutes ago, reason10 said:

The voters are STUPID. Or there is voter fraud. Only someone stupid would vote for a Democrat, dead or not.

Strange how Republicans think they’re smart, but they vote on this fallacy:

1) The problem with the economy is deficit spending

2) The Democrats cause deficits

3) Voting Republican will end or at least reduce deficits  

So in 1980, 1984, 2000, 2004, and 2016 they elected Republican Presidents who said they would eliminate deficits and instead created the largest ever deficit increases. Over and over, same lies, same results. 

 

[Aristides]

The grapes are very sour this morning.

 

Oprah made OZ and even she realized what a fake he is.

[reason10]

17 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The grapes are very sour this morning.

 

Oprah made OZ and even she realized what a fake he is.

PA Retards voted for a frat boy who cannot complete sentences, over a self made millionaire DOCTOR.

And you wonder why everybody says liberal democrats are stupid.

[reason10]

27 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Strange how Republicans think they’re smart, but they vote on this fallacy:

1) The problem with the economy is deficit spending

2) The Democrats cause deficits

3) Voting Republican will end or at least reduce deficits  

So in 1980, 1984, 2000, 2004, and 2016 they elected Republican Presidents who said they would eliminate deficits and instead created the largest ever deficit increases. Over and over, same lies, same results. 

 

WRONG.

Baseline budgetting, (which can only be overturned by an act of Congress) is the reason why deficits have soared since Nixon signed that bill into law, and why ENTITLEMENTS are now 70 percent of the federal budget. The REAGAN TAX CUTS added BILLIONS to the Treasury.

https://amac.us/reagan-cut-taxes-revenue-boomed/

Or did you even wonder why the last time the budget was balanced was in 1969, during the VIETNAM WAR, when Defense was the largest item in the budget?

And you wonder why everybody says liberals are so stupid.

[Aristides]

Favourite line last night was from Colbert. Washington post said red wave turned into the pink ripple. That's what you get when you wash your MAGA hat with your Klan robe.

 

Clinton ran surpluses four years in a row. 1998 to 2001.

[Rebound]

56 minutes ago, reason10 said:

PA Retards voted for a frat boy who cannot complete sentences, over a self made millionaire DOCTOR.

And you wonder why everybody says liberal democrats are stupid.

If Oz said he was a Democrat, you’d hate him, so cut the BS.

Come on… the GOP is backing a football player who beat his girlfriends, forced them to have abortions and he can’t string two words together.

Voters in PA liked Fetterman because they identify with the fact that he’s struggling to overcome adversity.  They can relate to that. Most likely, his condition will heal.  

[Rebound]

57 minutes ago, reason10 said:

WRONG.

Baseline budgetting, (which can only be overturned by an act of Congress) is the reason why deficits have soared since Nixon signed that bill into law, and why ENTITLEMENTS are now 70 percent of the federal budget. The REAGAN TAX CUTS added BILLIONS to the Treasury.

https://amac.us/reagan-cut-taxes-revenue-boomed/

Or did you even wonder why the last time the budget was balanced was in 1969, during the VIETNAM WAR, when Defense was the largest item in the budget?

And you wonder why everybody says liberals are so stupid.

Bait and switch

Bait and switch

”Deficits are the number one problem.” Reagan INCREASED Federal spending. Social Security and Medicare are self-funded programs. They are independently funded through payroll taxes.  Reagan BORROWED from the Social Security trust fund to fund his deficit spending. Not the other way around. 
 

So who’s stupid? You vote for the deficit reducer and then get suckered into his BS that deficits are magically unimportant. Deficits matter SO MUCH when Republicans are out of office and not at all when they’re in office.  And you’re proof of it. Your answer to “deficits soared” is “tax revenues increased”. So what? Reagan borrowed and spent vastly more than his predecessors and his successors. 

Edited November 10, 2022 by Rebound

[Aristides]

Reagan increased the debt by 186%, more than any president since WW2. GW Bush was second at 105%.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Aristides

[Rebound]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

Reagan increased the debt by 186%, more than any president since WW2. GW Bush was second.

Trump was the biggest deficit spender BY FAR, and Biden cut Trump’s deficit a full 50% his first year in office. 

[Aristides]

Roosevelt was the highest in percentage of debt increase but he had the Great Depression and WW2 to contend with. He also served three terms.

[reason10]

25 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Bait and switch

Bait and switch

”Deficits are the number one problem.” Reagan INCREASED Federal spending. Social Security and Medicare are self-funded programs. They are independently funded through payroll taxes.  Reagan BORROWED from the Social Security trust fund to fund his deficit spending. Not the other way around. 
 

So who’s stupid? You vote for the deficit reducer and then get suckered into his BS that deficits are magically unimportant. Deficits matter SO MUCH when Republicans are out of office and not at all when they’re in office.  And you’re proof of it. Your answer to “deficits soared” is “tax revenues increased”. So what? Reagan borrowed and spent vastly more than his predecessors and his successors. 

You don't even know what bait and switch means.

You do not know what you are talkinga bout.

Reagan was CRUCIFIED by the left for CUTTING the INCREASE in spending. Goose steppers on the left accused him of starving children, kicking old people out of their homes, etc.

Are you high on meth?

Sosha Curity self funding? In WHAT PARALLEL UNIVERSE? Sosha Curity has ALWAYS come from the general fund.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/there-right-social-security#
 

Quote

 

The Court’s decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”

In other words, Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington. Congress has cut Social Security benefits in the past and is likely to do so in the future. In fact, given Social Security’s financial crisis, benefit cuts are almost inevitable. Several proposals to cut benefits, from increasing the retirement age to means testing, are already being debated.

 

You SERIOUSLY know nothing. All you know is how to LIE.

[reason10]

53 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Favourite line last night was from Colbert. Washington post said red wave turned into the pink ripple. That's what you get when you wash your MAGA hat with your Klan robe.

 

Clinton ran surpluses four years in a row. 1998 to 2001.

KKKlinton did NOT run surpluses. EVER.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget#

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2011/10/03/time-for-some-truth-bill-clinton-never-balanced-a-budget-and-never-ran-a-surplus/

Quote

The truth is the United States federal budget was not balanced in any of Bill Clinton’s eight years as President. Not once!

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/6/clinton-gingrich-and-the-balanced-budget-myth/
 

Quote

 

According to the Bureau of Public Debt of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the federal debt actually increased in each of those years. In other words, the supposed surplus was never realized. Can it be a myth? Can it be the “surplus” was just another gimmick that Washington uses because it makes up its own rules? Let’s look even closer.

 

 

https://www.times-news.com/opinion/clinton-balanced-budget-a-myth/article_c2f690a7-d8a5-548d-bca4-b41b097f90ec.html

Quote

There was never a surplus, and the facts support that position. Far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

I was just wondering this of libs: Does smoking all that meth also make you believe in the tooth fairy?

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

You don't even know what bait and switch means.

You do not know what you are talkinga bout.

Reagan was CRUCIFIED by the left for CUTTING the INCREASE in spending. Goose steppers on the left accused him of starving children, kicking old people out of their homes, etc.

Are you high on meth?

Sosha Curity self funding? In WHAT PARALLEL UNIVERSE? Sosha Curity has ALWAYS come from the general fund.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/there-right-social-security#
 

You SERIOUSLY know nothing. All you know is how to LIE.

“Hey look!! I found a biased right-wing website that tells me what I want to hear and makes the factual claims I want to hear… all without providing a single actual fact.”

 

Educate yourself. Read the facts from the SSA, and get back to us:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

[reason10]

30 minutes ago, Rebound said:

“Hey look!! I found a biased right-wing website that tells me what I want to hear and makes the factual claims I want to hear… all without providing a single actual fact.”

 

Educate yourself. Read the facts from the SSA, and get back to us:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

So you post a biased left wing site?

First, CATO is not a right wing site. Not even close. It is a free market LIBERTARIAN think tank, which means it is a lot higher on the brain chart than any liberal.

Second, the article gives the CASES where Social Security is deemed a WELFARE PROGRAM. Find someone with an education who has read the  Constitution to explain to you who the United States Supreme Court is.

Third, the philosophy of the Fleming v. Nestor case was first revealed on a large scale by Ronald Reagan, (formerly governor of California and best president of all times.)

https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/reagans/ronald-reagan/time-choosing-speech-october-27-1964

From the speech:

Quote

But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.

Quote

 

I know this because I used to sell life insurance, which means I had to be schooled on annuities.

Sosha Curity, in the private sector, would be listed as a life annuity.  That means money is deposited over a life time, usually tax deferred. At the point of retirement, the lump sum of money "annuitizes." That means the retiree gets a monthly sum of money, based on the insurance company's actuarial computations of that account's investments and earned interest.

Thing is, ANY insurance company using the same crooked accounting methods as the federal government would be SHUT DOWN by that same government.

Just forget it. This is WAY over your blue state third grade education.

Edited November 10, 2022 by reason10

[Rebound]

16 minutes ago, reason10 said:

So you post a biased left wing site?

First, CATO is not a right wing site. Not even close. It is a free market LIBERTARIAN think tank, which means it is a lot higher on the brain chart than any liberal.

Second, the article gives the CASES where Social Security is deemed a WELFARE PROGRAM. Find someone with an education who has read the  Constitution to explain to you who the United States Supreme Court is.

Third, the philosophy of the Fleming v. Nestor case was first revealed on a large scale by Ronald Reagan, (formerly governor of California and best president of all times.)

https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/reagans/ronald-reagan/time-choosing-speech-october-27-1964

From the speech:

I know this because I used to sell life insurance, which means I had to be schooled on annuities.

Sosha Curity, in the private sector, would be listed as a life annuity.  That means money is deposited over a life time, usually tax deferred. At the point of retirement, the lump sum of money "annuitizes." That means the retiree gets a monthly sum of money, based on the insurance company's actuarial computations of that account's investments and earned interest.

Thing is, ANY insurance company using the same crooked accounting methods as the federal government would be SHUT DOWN by that same government.

Just forget it. This is WAY over your blue state third grade education.

The Social Security Administration is a “biased left wing site”?  No, it’s a Primary Source. 

Edited November 10, 2022 by Rebound

[reason10]

Just now, Rebound said:

The Social Security Administration is a “biased left wing site”?  No, it’s a Primary Source. 

Nope. It is a government source, which is subject to politics.

It is also a source of FRAUD. Social Security IS a welfare program. There has NEVER been a separate Sosha Curity trust fund. I've already proven that.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, reason10 said:

Nope. It is a government source, which is subject to politics.

It is also a source of FRAUD. Social Security IS a welfare program. There has NEVER been a separate Sosha Curity trust fund. I've already proven that.

Just because YOU distrust the government is NOT evidence their programs and data is corrupt.

If you can arbitrarily any source you don't like, then anyone can do the SAME with YOUR sources.

[reason10]

13 hours ago, robosmith said:

Just because YOU distrust the government is NOT evidence their programs and data is corrupt.

If you can arbitrarily any source you don't like, then anyone can do the SAME with YOUR sources.

Facts are facts. Fleming v. Nestor is a Supreme Court Case. (Get someone with an education to explain to you the existence of the United States Supreme Court.)

You can through unelected Joe government sources at me 24-7 and you'll still look like a fool.

[Rebound]

25 minutes ago, reason10 said:

Facts are facts. Fleming v. Nestor is a Supreme Court Case. (Get someone with an education to explain to you the existence of the United States Supreme Court.)

You can through unelected Joe government sources at me 24-7 and you'll still look like a fool.

You said you studied business administration, not law. 

[reason10]

33 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You said you studied business administration, not law. 

I have an AA in Paralegal Studies. Switched to Business because even in Florida lawyers are a-holes. Didn't want to work for them.

But anyone with an education can read a case.

(Maybe that's why you're having so much problem with the facts here, and the reliable links I provide.)

[Rebound]

3 hours ago, reason10 said:

I have an AA in Paralegal Studies. Switched to Business because even in Florida lawyers are a-holes. Didn't want to work for them.

But anyone with an education can read a case.

(Maybe that's why you're having so much problem with the facts here, and the reliable links I provide.)

Nonetheless, you have been posting other’s opinions and not facts. “This article claims X” is not proof of anything except “somebody said this.”